Spot the Difference

[Chris Buie]

The Sunday paper used to have a 'spot the difference' thing with two drawings side by side. The goal was, of course, to find all the differences between the two images. I thought some of you might find it interesting to do a golf version of that with Pinehurst No. 2.
The images are courtesy of the Tufts Archives. http://www.tuftsarchives.org/expansion-information.html
Feel free to see if you can guess the logic behind the changes, as well.
You can enlarge the image by clicking on it.

[Mark Fedeli]

i'll take a shot. increased length and scorecard balance?

they added 350 yards along with 3 holes with more severe dog legs than any hole previously. and if the original 8th hole was a par 3, they eliminated having three par 3's on the front, and all in a 4 hole stretch.

[Jaeger Kovich]

I wont spoil it just yet! ... Mark, its not length / scorecard. Those are products of the real difference.

[Tom Kelly]

They bought some new land.

[Adam Clayman]

It's not that they bought more land, they used what was previously part of the employees course, to improve the lower left hand corner (in pics). 

Changing the 1st par 3 from the 4th to the 6th hole is one change this terrible aerial observer notices.

Like Banff, Ross not challenging the golfer with a one shot hole until the 6th, is way more interesting then all these par 3's on the 2nd or 3rd hole.

[Tom ORourke]

It looks like they also moved 17 to make room for a new tee on 18 that makes it a dogleg rather than straight.

[Greg Tallman]

In a word- doglegs

[Chris Buie]

You guys have a pretty good grip on how the holes were modified in the images. All of those changes were just in one year.
Ross modified it virtually every year for almost half a century.

IMHO one the primary keys to the course can be found in this quote from Ross:
“These abilities should be called for in a proportion that will not permit excellence in any one department of the game to largely offset deficiencies in another.”
It doesn't appear to be such a dramatic or flashy statement but I'd say it's important as these things go.

The shifting around of 17 and 18 is a lesson in routing. 18 was more interesting with the angled tee shot (especially with the bunkering specifically designed for that).


However, the quality of 17 was seriously compromised when it was shortened with the green in the low lying area. It had to be on the natural rise of the earlier version. It's a good example of how when designing a course you have to always keep the overall picture at the forefront.
Still, it seems he could have kept a more angular tee shot for the 18th...  

Well, there were a boatload of modifications that went on through the years. I wonder how many owners these days would enable one of the top talents to tinker with a course for decades? Not many - if any, no doubt. That being the case you have to give Leonard Tufts a great deal of credit for the course. It would not be as we know it today without him. Today's Napoleon course owners would do well to make a sharp study of how he went about things. He enabled that process to happen and knew when to give practical input and when to back off - more the latter than the former thankfully. He was remarkable and very impressive in his own right.

That's just a small fragment of the No. 2 story for your consideration.

[Sven Nilsen]

Chris:

I greatly appreciate your insights into Pinehurst, and NC golf in general.  Keep 'em coming, now's as good a time as any to jump in to the history of that area.

Sven

[BCrosby]

Great stuff Chris. Keep it coming.

Have you come across any more information on Travis' involvement with P2?

When were the current 4th and 5th hole corridors built?

Bob

[Adam Clayman]

Juices are flowing.
 




Is there more to all this golf digest negative pre Pinehurst hype?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,

That's really interesting.

Could you also post the final version and cite the year in which it became set in cement.

Even neater would be if there were additional iterations between 1923 and the final version.

Great stuff

[Tom_Doak]

Well, there were a boatload of modifications that went on through the years. I wonder how many owners these days would enable one of the top talents to tinker with a course for decades?

Chris:

The closest thing I can think of is all the changes Pete Dye has made to Crooked Stick over the years.  But that's a member-owned club, and some of the changes have been contentious among the members, as much as they all love Pete.

It was probably much easier for Mr. Trufts to let Mr. Ross do his thing considering the course in those days was sand greens ... so making changes did not take the course out of play for any length of time.  Did he continue to make changes AFTER the sand greens were installed in 1935, or was the course complete once they were?

[Chris Buie]

Hmm, I was negligent with this thread...apologies!

Thanks Sven!

Have you come across any more information on Travis' involvement with P2?

Mr. Crosby I don't think anybody really knows exactly what Travis' input was. That is, it's a mystery. We sometimes try to figure out how courses happened on GCA and it's fun to do but when some of the historic pathways cannot be entirely and precisely discerned that's perfectly fine with me.
You can read Travis' entire version of the early work on the course here (about halfway down the page):
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/the-early-days-of-pinehurst-pg-4/

When were the current 4th and 5th hole corridors built?

1928

Could you also post the final version and cite the year in which it became set in cement.

Patrick, the current routing was somewhere between '33 and '36. How do we know this? No. 5 Course was used as an archery course in 1933. The 1936 PGA was played on today's route. Ergo...
Ross actually played archery golf - at least a little bit. He was probably obliged to for the health of the resort in tough times. I doubt he wanted to.
For various reasons a lot of attention will be paid to the 5th hole this year. Most won't realize it was actually part of an entirely different course or that the dignified designer once trotted around it with a bow and a quiver full of arrows.
BTW, the 5th hole was a par-5 until 1949. That was the year they changed it to a par-4. It is what it's always been - a half par hole. If someone made the grievous error of having me design a course I can guarantee you one of the first things I'd be doing is to try to identify land which naturally lent itself to being a hole of indeterminate par - preferably a reachable, ego boosting par-5. People get beaten up all the time on courses. Why not design at least a few holes which evoke the opposite feeling in the player?

Did he continue to make changes AFTER the sand greens were installed in 1935, or was the course complete once they were?

I can't give you a definitive answer on that Tom. My opinion is that Ross was an inveterate or compulsive tinkerer. I think any time he walked any course his mind worked in such a way that it automatically (and rapidly) pictured how it could be improved. The fact that this capability was applied to No. 2 for almost half a century is the primary reason the course is what it is.
So, in answer to your question, I would suppose he continued to do some refining - but not major changes.

The year before they installed the grass greens they did a test run on the first three greens of No. 2. Only, they kept the sand greens that year, as well. That is, when you played the course for that season - and that season only - you'd find two greens to aim for on the first three holes.

[Matt Bielawa]

Well, there were a boatload of modifications that went on through the years. I wonder how many owners these days would enable one of the top talents to tinker with a course for decades?

Chris:

The closest thing I can think of is all the changes Pete Dye has made to Crooked Stick over the years.  But that's a member-owned club, and some of the changes have been contentious among the members, as much as they all love Pete.

It was probably much easier for Mr. Trufts to let Mr. Ross do his thing considering the course in those days was sand greens ... so making changes did not take the course out of play for any length of time.  Did he continue to make changes AFTER the sand greens were installed in 1935, or was the course complete once they were?

Wouldn't Muirfield Village technically fall under this description?  Seems like Jack is always tinkering with it.

[Craig Disher]

Chris - Is it possible that the changes were influenced by real estate? Could Ross have wanted to pull the course closer to the property where he would build his house? Also, the large white house to the left of #6 seems to be near the 1922 fairway of hole #3. If that house was constructed in the mid-20s, the plans might have influenced the routing.

[Jay Flemma]

It's not that they bought more land, they used what was previously part of the employees course, to improve the lower left hand corner (in pics). 

Changing the 1st par 3 from the 4th to the 6th hole is one change this terrible aerial observer notices.

Like Banff, Ross not challenging the golfer with a one shot hole until the 6th, is way more interesting then all these par 3's on the 2nd or 3rd hole.

Why is it more interesting to have a par-3 arrive as late as six?  I usually like to have one fairly early as a change of pace3...

[Chris Buie]

Wouldn't Muirfield Village technically fall under this description?  Seems like Jack is always tinkering with it.

That's a good example Matt. He had a co-designer but it's still the same principle. Good one. I suppose Oakmont might be similar with Fownes, as well. Probably there are some other examples here and there. Still, the changes on No. 2 were radical - presumably far more extensive than other examples we could come up with. It started out as a little 9 hole run which just took up the land of today's 1st and 18th holes.
In the following graphic from the Tufts Archives No. 1 Course is on the right. No. 2 - or the beginnings of it - is the 9 hole course.


Craig, real estate was certainly one of their interests. I don't know if it had any influence on their thinking with regard to No. 2. It is clear he wanted No. 2 to be a masterpiece and he ultimately considered it to be. He definitely did not consider it compromised in any way. But it's theoretically possible that the area he had to work with was to some extent determined by real estate ideas.

[Craig Disher]

I've heard from a knowledgeable source that Ross's addition of the current 3-6 was driven by his and Tufts' plans for building course #4 at the resort. They wanted to use part of #2 (the old 8-10) for the course and the area out Midland Road was available and convenient. During the planning Ross bought lots along Midland, one of which became the site for his house.

[Chris Buie]

It's a very long and very intricate story.
No. 4 Course was built prior to the inclusion of today's 3rd-6th holes. The abandoned parts of No. 2 the source was referring to were not assimilated into No. 4 until the 1950's.
Your source was certainly right about Ross being interested in real estate though. He did have many lots. He owned other things, as well. I've read a lot of articles and books about Ross but don't think I've seen it mentioned that on the Pine Needles property he owned a...castle.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,

His residence to the right of # 5 fairway seems rather modest.

How wealthy was the original "Donald" when he died ?

[Craig Disher]

It's a very long and very intricate story.
No. 4 Course was built prior to the inclusion of today's 3rd-6th holes. The abandoned parts of No. 2 the source was referring to were not assimilated into No. 4 until the 1950's.
Your source was certainly right about Ross being interested in real estate though. He did have many lots. He owned other things, as well. I've read a lot of articles and books about Ross but don't think I've seen it mentioned that on the Pine Needles property he owned a...castle.

A castle it's not but certainly a fine looking house.

I don't think your point is inconsistent with what my friend said. The construction of #4 was begun after the Ross house at Pinehurst was built. It's just as likely that he and Tufts knew that #4 would be in that area and with that in mind added the current 3 and 6 as part of #2. I suspect that having holes of #2 paralleling Midland Rd where Ross had property might be more than a coincidence. Incorporating the two holes from the employee's course came later - perhaps motivated by complaints about the hilly nature of the ground around 8-10 or just that they were two very good holes.

[Chris Buie]

How wealthy was the original "Donald" when he died ?

Patrick, here's a clip from Paul Dunn's book:



Dunn's book had a lot more information than I was expecting it to have. There are a lot of interesting stories and facts about the courses he built that I hadn't read anywhere else in the book. For the Ross enthusiast, I would definitely recommend the book.

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Donald-Ross-Golf-Courses/dp/1586670603/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396727015&sr=1-1&keywords=paul+dunn+ross+courses+you+can+play

Craig, you're right. It's a large house - which is still there a row back from 18 on Pine Needles. The early writers were not at all averse to hyperbole which I found amusing.
I wouldn't have found some of the early Pinehurst advertising amusing if I was an early visitor though. They portrayed the playing conditions as being lush when the fairways were actually more sparse than the worst kept muni today. If I rode all night on a train to go play golf somewhere and there were a bunch of cows in the fairways I would be kind of amused but irritated as well.


Craig, regarding the plans for the courses, here is something from 1919 for your consideration:

The construction of #4 was begun after the Ross house at Pinehurst was built.

I'd have to double check but I'm pretty certain the Ross house on No. 2 was built in the early '20's. They definitely started building No. 4 course in 1910:



Here's an article from the 1911 Pinehurst Outlook (courtesy of the Tufts Archives):